Talk:Unidan

Untitled section

How is Unidan worthy of a Wikipedia entry? Oh, he wrote popular Reddit comments, big fucking deal. --87.122.140.7 (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Quick note

We cannot use Reddit as a reliable source to claim something is a "controversy". Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 17:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Except when it's about an internet persona and especially him, seeing as he's "famous" only on Reddit. Ravelair (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No longer notable

The questionable nature of his being notable before is gone, as he has been banned from Reddit. I nominate for Speedy Deletion.

Screen317 (talk) 20:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. To the people saying "keep the article, it answered my questions about him" you can go to Know Your Meme or the Daily Dot article that pops up when you google him, but this article lowers the bar for wikipedia standards as a whole right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.195.167 (talk) 23:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

agreed. a forum power-user is not notable, especially one that no longer exists. Dru1138 (talk) 15:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If Wikipedia removed everything as soon as it was over, we'd be left with nothing but currently ongoing events. The fact that FIFA 2014 is over isn't really a reason to remove it. In the case of Unidan, the "end" arguably makes the subject *more* notable, if only briefly. It also happened recently and may not be fully resolved yet, so it would make sense to have patience and leave the article up for a year or so to see what happens. - Alltat (talk) 13:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be renamed "Ben Eisenkop" as Eisenkop is no longer a user on reddit, but is still notable because he appeared in TED talks and other events under that name.--MJH92^talk 01:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It actually was named Ben Eisenkop previously, before Tutelary moved it per WP:COMMONNAME on 9 August. You can see the discussion elsewhere in this talk page. --58.110.40.62 (talk) 10:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There was never notability (power-users on internet websites are not automatically notable) in the first place. Absolutely agree with the nomination. 2605:E000:3EC6:9900:15F6:15E2:FB03:A267 (talk) 04:12, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

There hasn't been an actual nomination, and this discussion is pretty stale (see the dates), so this probably isn't the best place to make the case for one. Wikipedia determines notability based on sources. The article has plenty of reliable sources discussing him from both before and after he got banned. See WP:BASIC and WP:GNG for why this is unlikely to be deleted at articles for deletion, so actually nominating it would probably be a waste of time. Grayfell (talk) 06:39, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

DO NOT DELETE THE TAGS

Tags are there for a reason. DO NOT DELETE THEM OR YOU WILL BE SERVED A WARNING. Ravelair (talk) 10:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and what is that reason for adding the tags? I had removed your tags and asked you to explain your reasons in this edit summary. You added the tags back without giving any reason, and left a templated vandalism warning on my talk page - it is bad form to do that to an established editor, as is your use of ALL CAPS here.

Since you haven't bothered to explain the tags, I will remove the tags again and explain my reasons here:

• COI: Please identify the purported COI editor. If you are implying that I am the COI editor, as I have written most of the article, then you are wrong. I have no COI with Unidan, unless you consider being a redditor a COI, in which case tens of millions of people have a COI with him, as do probably all the editors who have edited the article.
• WP:NACADEMICS: This is inappropriate because this is not the appropriate criterion for assessing Unidan's notability. He is certainly not notable as an academic, but satisfies the criteria for general notability and that for celebrities. This is like tagging the Barack Obama article with a notability tag saying he might not meet WP:ATHLETE.
• Recentism: This is not appropriate since there is only one paragraph at the very end of the article about the recent shadowban.

Please explain your reasons before you add the tags again. AlmostGrad (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep the article

I actually came here, looking for information about him, because I heard some fuzz on the internet about him.

This article cleared all my questions perfectly and was a worth well read. Please keep the article, because it is informative and helped me find what I was looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.152.102.103 (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME

I'd like to start a discussion on moving this page to Unidan, because that's what he's most often referred to. Tutelary (talk) 20:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have asked User:Melchoir on their talk page to move it, but a general discussion might be a good idea, too. AlmostGrad (talk) 22:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll be the one to start the requested move, after the afd is done, of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDLY moved it per WP:COMMONAME and WP:BRD and will be filing a requested move if my move is contested. Though maybe, it won't be necessary if this sticks. Tutelary (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. Even the sources that use his real name indicate to the reader that they might know him better as Unidan. Breadblade (talk) 22:11, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Delete: Wikipedia is not for reporting insignificant events taking place on social media websites

This is an extremely poorly written page that has been categorized as "biography" of a person and holds no value. In fact, this page seems to exist only to discuss suspension of his account on a social media website.

This individual's fame is limited to a social media website and has no notable contribution or impact outside of it.

A popularized person or event on a social media website does not make them worthy of having a Wikipedia page dedicated to their biography. If anything, this article to me resembles a promotional article. This article would perhaps serve better on someone's blog or on other websites dedicated to slangs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaykeepsitreals (talk • contribs) 04:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Notability is determined by reliable sources, of which there are plenty for this article's subject. This article existed (with plenty of very reliable sources) well before the even you're referring to. Is it promotional, or is it about the subject being banned? I don't think it can be both given that subjects aren't keen on promoting such negative information, so which one is it? It is promotional or is it only about a ban? - Aoidh (talk) 05:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to seem to be mostly sources targeted for the social medial website that the person is known (or worse, the website itself posted by the individual). This goes along with my original statement that this "article" is perhaps being better suited for a blog post or a slang website dedicated to popularized events/slangs/etc on social media websites. As I mentioned in my original statment, this article seems to only exist for the people who frequent the social media website he is known in, and this individual's "biography" (which this article is not) is irrelevant outside this social media website.

The existence of the article prior to the suspension of his account seems like a promotional advertisement rather than a useful biography that anyone might actually be interested outside the social medial website. Also, notoriety through acts of indecency, negativity, rebellious behavior, etc, is very common and can serve as means of self-promotion. This page should not have existed prior to suspension of his account, and should not exist after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimmaykeepsitreals (talk • contribs) 15:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding "The sources you are referring to seem to be mostly sources targeted for the social medial website that the person is known", you're going to have to clarify what you mean, because that comment is too vague to address as written. Most biographies (and indeed most articles) are "irrelevant" outside of the subjects for which they are known; that is not cause to delete an article. The subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines and nothing that would merit immediate deletion (such as WP:CV) has been given, so it's not going to be deleted through anything you say on this talk page. There have been three AfDs in the past couple of months that failed to reach a consensus for deleting the article, so a new AfD at this time wouldn't work either. Basically, you are welcome to your opinion that the article should not exist, but that opinion has no bearing on its appropriateness as a Wikipedia article, which is determined by consensus-driven guidelines and policies, and through reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 23:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response to my comment here is as useful and relevant as the article in question. Two notable differences are: 1) it is not polluting the main content of Wikipedia 2) It is slowing becoming a personal attack. It is best I leave it at this to prevent further meaningless discussion here. My opinion stands as is. Jimmaykeepsitreals (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This article should not exist.

I am an active power user of bodybuilding.com. I have done nothing notable, but have quite a big reputation amongst the bodybuilding.com community. This doesn't warrant me a wikipedia page. Mr.Eisenkop has done nothing of note, and does not deserve a wikipedia page. Should we now make an article for each and every student of biology in every university in the world? I can't fathom the thought process of the person who thought of creating this page. Unidan has an even worse reputation and was banned from Reddit for manipulating his votes, the same votes that made him popular, and the same votes that incited a person to create this page. He manipulated a website simply for attention, and attention he got. This article teaches me nothing.

Shtalic (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources warrants an article, not a threshold of popularity within a community, so your comparison doesn't apply here. Your opinion that the article shouldn't exist is precisely that, your opinion. The article more than meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, so an article on the subject is warranted. - Aoidh (talk) 02:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Not your mother's PEOPLE Magazine but better. Stronger. Faster. AfflictedHorror (talk) 13:48, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all websites are created equal. Being notable on a website with ~200,000,000 active users is an entirely different thing from being notable on a website with a few thousand users. Even Reddit subforums dedicated to specific subjects frequently have over ten million members. It's bigger than most countries. Being notable on Reddit means being known by more people than if you were notable in France or California or whatever. - Alltat (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. Two years from now no one's going to know this name or have a reason to care this person ever existed.

Vote fraud vs vote manipulation

I don't think it is appropriate to describe Unidan's actions as fraud. Vote fraud redirects to Electoral fraud, which is clearly about elections, and has legal implications. Yeah, okay, colloquially, it can be described as fraud, but Wikipedia should use a formal WP:TONE. Reddit doesn't use elections, it uses votes as a means of identifying useful or interesting comments, nothing more. Regardless of the ethical implications, there's no criminal element to Unidan's actions, at least not that is supported by sources. Implying that someone has committed a criminal act is a clear violation of WP:BLP, and should be supported by sources both in the article, and in the infobox. Grayfell (talk) 01:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It redirects to that here on the encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean the terms are synonyms. Pressure also redirects to the article about physical pressure, that doesn't mean we can't talk about emotional pressure. The stuff about criminality is just a pure strawman argument not even worth addressing. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

How, exactly, is it a straw man? Who is the straw man in this situation? Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is claiming it is criminal. 24.252.141.175 (talk) 01:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. Nobody is claiming it is criminal, so we shouldn't use a term that implies it was criminal. Like it or not, vote fraud has criminal implications, and so we shouldn't be using it here. Grayfell (talk) 01:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I would upvote you if this was Reddit, but instead I have to use actual words. So yes, I agree that link should not be wikified at the very least. But whether we call it vote fraud or manipulation depends on what the sources call it. N^oformation ^Talk 03:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP should be blocked for wasting time, edit warring, and putting original research into the article. I've restored it to what the sources have stated. Tutelary (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2015 (UTC)